NEW DELHI: The opposition stalled proceedings in both Houses and demanded the dismissal of P Chidambaram for the quashing of FIRs after chargesheets had been filed against a businessman he represented as a lawyer, forcing the Delhi government to reverse the relief provided to a former client of the home minister.

Announcing the U-turn following angry protests from the opposition, Delhi government said, "After perusal of the chargesheets of the aforesaid cases, it has been revealed that there is sufficient evidence on record against the accused persons."

It further said, "Keeping in view the evidence on record, there is every likelihood that the concerned court may not allow the application of the state moved under Section 321 of CrPC, which is a pre-requisite condition, for withdrawal from the prosecution of any case."

The controversy concerns the withdrawal of three FIRs against S P Gupta, chairman of Sunair Hotels, and others who have been accused of using an NGO, 'All India Rajiv Krantikari Sangathan', and forging letters of MPs to harass his business rival. The NGO wrongly claimed that it had Congress chief Sonia Gandhi as its chief patron. The decision, first reported by TOI on December 13 (Tuesday), puzzled many in Congress because of the sensitivity that a party regime has for the Gandhis.

Although the home ministry had on Wednesday distanced itself from the controversial decision which it pinned on the law ministry, opposition went for the home minister's jugular in both Houses. Raising the issue, BJP leader Yashwant Sinha accused the home minister of committing a "criminal offence" by "favouring a former client". Terming the issue as serious since it concerned interference with administration of justice, Sinha said, "He is not only guilty of improper conduct but also criminal offence."

Seeking Chidambaram's dismissal, Sinha said, "This is an open and shut case. There is no ambiguity. Prime minister should immediately sack him. We cannot allow his continuance in office for even a moment."

In Rajya Sabha, the saffron charge was led by BJP's Chandan Mitra.

Apart from BJP, which has a running feud with the home minister and has been boycotting him in Parliament, AIADMK, Chidambaram's political bug-bear back home in Tamil Nadu, also jumped into the fray demanding his resignation.

Congress, however, defended the home minister. V Narayanasamy, minister of state in the PMO, responded to BJP's charge by saying Mitra was also guilty of conflict of interest. Referring to the follow-up of TOI's December 13 report, the minister said, "Mitra is raising the matter because it has been published in the newspaper he edits."

Outside the House, Congress spokesperson Manish Tewari rejected BJP's charge against Chidambaram. Dismissing the charge of conflict of interest, he said, "Anybody who has acquaintance with the legal profession is aware that senior counsels are usually briefed by solicitors or counsels. Very rarely are they briefed directly by clients. So the charge of conflict of interest is like raising a ghost and then slaying it and then calling yourself a superman".

NEW DELHI: Fresh documents raise questions about the home ministry's claim that it did not give any orders on withdrawal of the three FIRs against a Delhi businessman SP Gupta who was once a client of P Chidambaram.

After TOI first reported the matter on Tuesday, the home ministry has claimed in its clarifications that it was the law ministry which recommended the withdrawal of FIRs against S P Gupta. It maintained even on Thursday that its role was restricted to conveying the opinion of the law ministry to the Delhi government.

But the two-page law ministry note of March 18 and the May 9 order of the home ministry to the Delhi government both narrate a different story. The two-page March 18, 2011 opinion of the law ministry is vaguely worded and stops short of making a specific recommendation for the withdrawal of the FIRs.

Law ministry told the home ministry, "We are of the opinion so far as taking steps under section 173(8) CrPC as suggested by Sh Gupta in his representation is concerned, it not appropriate to interfere in investigation." Moreover, "as stated para 5 that three cases are pending for trial stage and in one case investigation is pending but no action has been taken due to directions of the high court," the law ministry pointed out.

The law ministry then left the entire decision to the home ministry. "However, if the representation of M/s Sunair Hotels Ltd falls under the ingredients of the said section i.e. 321 of the CrPC, then the ministry of home affairs may take suitable steps," the ministry had said.

In fact, the communication from A K Saxena, a director in MHA, to Arvind Ray, principal secretary in Delhi government, suggests that the home ministry did not follow a "hands off" approach in the matter as is being claimed now.

On May May 9, 2011, Saxena wrote to the Delhi government, "As per the advice of law ministry keeping in view the facts of these cases, the Home Department of Government of NCT of Delhi should urgently scrutinize the above cited case FIR No 90/2000, FIR No 99/2002 and FIR No 148/2002 registered by the Delhi Police for taking action under Section 321 of CrPC for withdrawal of prosecution immediately."

Saxena summed up by saying, "This has the approval of the Union Home Minister."

NEW DELHI: As home minister P Chidambaram came under opposition's attack over the issue of withdrawal of cases against a hotelier, his ministry again washed its hands off the controversial issue.

It claimed that Chidambaram and the ministry brass never made any recommendation for withdrawal of the FIRs against the minister's former client S P Gupta, and disowned the letter sent by a director-rank MHA officer to Delhi government asking for withdrawal of criminal proceedings against the businessman. The officer, A K Saxena, had recommended to the Delhi government that the FIRs be examined for withdrawal of prosecution. He added, "This has the approval of the Union home minister."

However, on Thursday, home secretary R K Singh suggested that Saxena acted unilaterally. He claimed that the draft of a letter sent by the ministry to the Delhi government for withdrawal of FIRs had not been shown to the home minister or then home secretary or the joint secretary concerned and it did not reflect the proper deliberations of the ministry.

Simultaneously, he also suggested that Saxena's letter was drafted poorly, giving rise to the perception of Chidambaram being in the loop on the recommendation to withdraw the FIRs. "Home minister had seen the file only once on May 4 and the file had not been submitted to him for orders at any point of time before or after that date," the home secretary said.

Defending Chidambaram, he claimed that even on May 4, the home minister had noted that "the ministry of home affairs (MHA) should not give any directions and MHA may only convey the advice of the ministry of law".

The attempt to firewall the home minister from the raging controversy did not convince all who are familiar with the ways of bureaucracy, with some doubting whether a director level officer could have acted unilaterally on his own, leave alone invoking the name of the minister.

However, Singh maintained, "I had called for the file yesterday (Wednesday) and read it carefully... The home ministry has never said that the case should be withdrawn. The letter only conveyed the advice of the law ministry. The decision had to be taken by the competent authority in Delhi government."

The home secretary said the issue came up before the ministry when it received a petition from Gupta that this was a civil matter being made out to be a criminal matter. On these representations, the then home secretary in February directed to consult the law ministry.

On the issue that Gupta used to be 'client' of Chidambaram, the ministry said, "The home minister has not appeared in courts since May 2004. He is unable to recall at this distance of time whether he appeared in a case concerning S P Gupta before 2004."

New Delhi: Fresh documents raise questions about the home ministryâ€™s claim that it did not give any orders on withdrawal of the three FIRs against a Delhi businessman who was once aclient of P Chidambaram.

After TOI first reported the matter on Tuesday, the home ministry claimed in its clarifications that it was the law ministry which recommended withdrawal of the FIRs against hotelier S P Gupta, whom Chidambaram had once represented as a lawyer. It maintained even on Thursday that its role was restricted to conveying the opinion of the law ministry to the Delhi government. But the two-page law ministry note of March 18 and the May 9 order of the home ministry to the Delhi government narrate a different story. The two-page March 18, 2011, opinion of the law ministry is vaguely worded and stops short of making a specific recommendation for the withdrawal of the FIRs.

Law ministry told the home ministry, â€œWe are of the opinion so far as taking steps under section 173(8) CrPC as suggested by S P Gupta in his representation is concerned, it not appropriate to interfere in investigation.â€ Moreover, â€œas stated para 5 that three cases are pending for trial stage and in one case investigation is pending but no action has been taken due to directions of the high courtâ€, the law ministry pointed out
.
The law ministry then left the decision to the home ministry. â€œHowever, if the representation of M/s Sunair Hotels Ltd falls under the ingredients of the said section i.e. 321 of the CrPC, then the ministry of home affairs may take suitable steps,â€ the ministry had said.

In fact, the communication from A K Saxena, a director in MHA, to Arvind Ray, principal secretary in Delhi government, suggests the home ministry did not follow a â€œhands offâ€ approach in the matter as is being claimed.

On May 9, 2011, Saxena wrote to the Delhi government, â€œAs per the advice of law ministry keeping in view the facts of these cases, the Home Department of Government of NCT of Delhi should urgently scrutinize the above cited case FIR No 90/2000, FIR No 99/2002 and FIR No 148/2002 registered by the Delhi police for taking action under Section 321 of CrPC for withdrawal of prosecution immediately.â€

Saxena summed up by saying, â€œThis has the approval of the Union Home Minister.â€ e-paper Sign-in

The timing and the sequence of events is very suspicious. Also the speed at which the Delhi LG has recommended prosecution of the case overturning the MHAs advice on the very day when the issue rocked the Parliament, shows that all is not as hunky dory as certain loudmouth congress spokesperson is claiming.

PC may maintain a holier than thou attitude but his reputation has taken a beating. People from TN have been alleging about the activities of PC with his son Karthic as a front man.

There is a strong lobby in Andhra and Tamil nadu which wants PC in dock these guys are firmly at the back of Pranab and MMS

Click to expand...

Maybe.

But compared to some of the Ministers and MPs, Chidambaram always looks like having had a bath, shaved and not harried. His crisp white dhoti tied like a lungi in the South Indian style makes him look rather nice!

Of course, he is arrogant and thinks everyone else is a fool and that is his problem!

The only person who he feels is a fool, where I agree with him, is Digvijay Singh, who has made himself look like a clown!

When I read this on going serial of scandals and abuse of trust by these shameless elected officials clothed in white robe it just boils up my blood and pray that someday very soon people will go in the streets of the entire nation and demand justice. When communication between two ministries is contradicting the stand taken by our HM than there is something fishy without a doubt. It is also possible that A. K. Saxena might have tried do a favour S.P. Gupta for any future consideration. All the possibilities should be explored to get the facts out in open.

I think GOI should set up an office of inquiry specifically for Chidambaram and his dealing to this day to get to the bottom of it. They should have a committee to reel in all the individuals involved in this fiasco and whoever is found guilty the punishment should be no less than fifty years. Beside the jail term all the money spent on inquiry should become the responsibility of convicted parties.

In order to safeguard the GOI from any type of scandals all the candidates vying for the any ministerial post should be made declare their personal contacts and copies of correspondence be examined by a committee before being accepted for the post.

These distraction have become a nuance and very little is being done to achieve the goals for national defence and economic development therefore it is about time have rules and regulation to prevent these undesired shenanigans by elected officials.

Having worked in Delhi, and having seen notesheets and GOI letters, I can say this with confidence that no one in the appointment of a Director would dare endorse an official letter to state that it has the approval of the Minister without having really had the approval of the Minister, verbally or in writing.

If the various notesheets and Part Cases are vetted, more often than not, such an approval (even an initial to indicate seen) would surface.

An initial to indicate seen is adequate to indicate approval unless a note is endorsed thereafter on the noting sheet.

And any letter that indicates a policy or in the name of the Minister has to go to the Minister on file for his perusal!

Having worked in Delhi, and having seen notesheets and GOI letters, I can say this with confidence that no one in the appointment of a Director would dare endorse an official letter to state that it has the approval of the Minister without having really had the approval of the Minister, verbally or in writing.

If the various notesheets and Part Cases are vetted, more often than not, such an approval (even an initial to indicate seen) would surface.

An initial to indicate seen is adequate to indicate approval unless a note is endorsed thereafter on the noting sheet.

And any letter that indicates a policy or in the name of the Minister has to go to the Minister on file for his perusal!

Click to expand...

I take your word for what you have stated, it is time for heads to roll. Let us construct a separate jail named "Ministers Hard Labour Jail". If I ever return and start my political carrier in India wish these thugs good luck. I will whip everyone into a mindset where any abuse of even one paisa worth will be a jail term in the prison and no exceptions at all.

Chatterjee is given responsibility to check the progress of all GOI schemes every month. Reason for which you know. Nair is still the most powerful. Pulok C was doing great in early days of UPA-1 but mysteriously escaped when it came to Nuke Bill dispute within UPA around 2007.